For some reason it is much more of a pleasure when it is some software or small idea than a whole paper. Maybe because we have less formal ways to refer to those?

which evaluates and builds on some of the work in hashpring
(which really was totally down to Carl than me).

github.com/epinowcast/h...

Liked this: "In conclusion, thinking about modelling as experimentation does not cage creativity; it structures it, giving us better tools to ask sharper questions, present clearer answers and build cumulative science."

I really enjoyed this - luckily found it just before having a call with John about workflows for IDM vs just after.

You're absolutely right! 😜

(I mean this all in a context of talking about code not day to day!)

For example, I really like communicating briefly and do so with LLMs as it works for them. However, with people its important to add qualifies etc.

Similarly, in a review the LLM can be told to change something small on bulk without a worry but for a person this might take a really long time.

5 minutes!

I just had a look for tools etc to do some data analysis on this for an individual or research more generally but in the quick skim I had time for didn't find anything.

Does anyone know of good resources?

Had another similar conversation about software papers being a bit pointless and just let people cite the software.

Had a similar conversation about supervisors not supporting legacy for profit journals like epidemics but feeling they need to support their staff/students submitting to them. The counter point I guess is tracking paper trajectory to see if that actually matters in the stats.